[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23975-23980]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: 
Calendar No. 532; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements thereon be printed in 
the Record, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The nomination was considered and confirmed as follows:


                   executive office of the president

       John P. Walters, of Michigan, to be Director of National 
     Drug Control Policy.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, all of us have a strong desire to confront 
and conquer the scourge of drug abuse and the ways it ravages American 
lives, especially young American lives. The debate on how best to 
prevail in this struggle is well under way in communities and at 
kitchen tables across the nation. The President's nomination of John 
Walters to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy has been the 
most recent catalyst for this debate.
  I voted against Mr. Walters' nomination in committee. In light of 
that, I would like to share some of my concerns about Mr. Walters in 
the hope that he will take them to heart, and that he will greatly 
exceed my expectations and the expectations of the other Senators who 
voted against him in committee.
  I believe Mr. Walters was the wrong choice for this job, and that his 
sharply partisan approach to drug policy issues provides an imperfect 
fit for an era of growing bipartisan consensus about drugs. Indeed, his 
ideological bent is a hindrance when our efforts to prevent drug abuse 
call for cooperation and pragmatism. Until his confirmation hearings, 
most of the little he had said and written about drug treatment was 
deeply skeptical. He has focused primarily on the need to reduce the 
supply of drugs, too rarely focusing on the neglected demand side of 
the drug equation. He has also dismissed concerns about the racial 
impact of our current drug policies and the utility of mandatory 
minimum sentences. In short, Mr. Walters' public record does not 
inspire confidence in those of us who think Congress has occasionally 
made the wrong decisions in our attempts to prevent drug abuse.
  I do not doubt Mr. Walters' intellect or the depth of his concern 
about our nation's drug problems. I simply believe that he is not the 
best person to coordinate our anti-drug efforts. We all agree that the 
fight against drug abuse is vitally important. We disagree only in the 
methods we choose to achieve our shared goal of a drug-free America.

[[Page 23976]]

  We have worked hard on the Judiciary Committee to ensure a speedy and 
fair hearing for the Bush administration's executive branch nominees. 
Within days of the Senate's reorganization this summer and my becoming 
chairman, I noticed a hearing on Asa Hutchinson's nomination to head 
the Drug Enforcement Administration. After we had the hearing, I 
expedited the process to provide a quick committee vote, and then 
worked to secure a vote on the floor so that Mr. Hutchinson's 
nomination could be approved before the August recess. I similarly 
expedited the process for the nominations of Robert Mueller to head the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation and of James Ziglar to head the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, among others.
  I scheduled John Walters' nomination hearing for the first full week 
following our August recess. That hearing was set for the morning of 
September 11, and was, of course, postponed as a result of the 
terrorist attacks in New York and near Washington. I made every effort 
to reschedule the hearing as soon as possible, consistent with our 
obligations to consider the anti-terrorism legislation that the 
Administration proposed shortly after the attacks. I believed strongly 
that drug abuse was still a vital problem for this nation and that we 
needed to continue to pay attention to our domestic priorities even as 
we engaged in our necessary response to terrorism. The committee 
considered the nomination on October 10.
  After that hearing, the work of the Judiciary Committee was made more 
difficult by the anthrax concerns that led to the closing of the Senate 
office buildings and the displacement of Members and their staffs. 
Considering these delays, and the controversy that Mr. Walters 
engendered, I think it is a tribute to the committee that we voted on 
his nomination as quickly as we did, within a month of his confirmation 
hearing.
  Law enforcements is and will remain indispensable in reducing drug 
abuse. Indeed, we all agree that we must severely punish those who 
traffic in and sell drugs. More than anyone, however, law enforcement 
officers know that improving drug treatment and taking other measures 
to reduce the demand for drugs will greatly assist their efforts. The 
White House also understands this. President Bush has said that ``[t]he 
most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to 
reduce the demand for drugs in America,'' and has promised that his 
administration will concentrate ``unprecedented attention'' on the 
demand for drugs. In the Senate, I have joined with Senator Hatch, 
Senator Biden, and others in introducing S. 304, the Drug Abuse 
Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act. That legislation would 
increase the federal focus on treatment programs, with targeted 
programs to increase the availability and effectiveness of drug 
treatment programs in rural areas, provide additional treatment 
opportunities for mothers who are addicted to drugs, and more.
  Although Mr. Walters testified at his confirmation hearing and wrote 
in his responses to written questions that he supports drug treatment 
efforts, his previous record casts doubt on the strength of this 
support. Mr. Walters has criticized the concept that addiction is a 
disease, referring to that concept as an ``ideology;'' even though it 
is held widely, if not universally, by government and private experts. 
He has written that ``the culture of victimhood lies at the core of the 
therapeutic worldview.'' He has said that he supports ``good'' 
treatment but sharply criticized existing treatment providers, aside 
from faith-based providers. These and other statements by Mr. Walters 
have caused great concern among many of these who care about treating 
drug addiction. For example, the president of the Betty Ford Center 
wrote to the Judiciary Committee on October 9 that: ``Mrs. Ford and I 
are convinced that Mr. Walters may not have the confidence in the 
treatment and prevention strategies that we believe are necessary for 
the creation and implementation of a balanced and thoughtful approach 
to U.S. drug policy.''
  As I have said repeatedly, we cannot reduce drug abuse without 
punishing drug offenders, and in particular without ensuring that those 
who traffic in and sell drugs are incarcerated for substantial periods 
of time. At the same time, many of us--Democrats and Republicans--have 
come to question our reliance on mandatory minimum sentences for a wide 
variety of drug offenses, as well as the 100:1 disparity under current 
law between sentences for crack and powder cocaine. In his writings and 
statements, Mr. Walters has been hostile to reconsideration of these 
policy choices Congress made during the 1980s. For example, he wrote as 
recently as March that the arguments that we are imprisoning too many 
people for merely possessing illegal drugs and that criminal sentences 
are too long or harsh were ``among the great urban myths of our time.'' 
This statement flies in the face of the widespread dissatisfaction with 
mandatory minimum sentences among policymakers and federal judges. 
Indeed, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conferences composed 
of representatives from all 12 U.S. circuits have called for the repeal 
of federal mandatory minimum sentences. Mr. Walters has said he would 
conduct a review of the current sentencing structure, but given his 
past views, I do not believe that he is the best person to undertake 
that task.
  Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to State and Federal prisons 
increased almost 16-fold, from over 10,000 drug admissions in 1983 to 
almost 167,000 new prison entries for drug offenses in 1998. During 
this time, white drug admissions increased more than 7-fold, Hispanic 
drug admissions increased 18-fold, and black drug admissions increased 
more than 26-fold. The disparity in sentences for crack and powder 
cocaine has contributed significantly to this disproportionate 
imprisonment of African Americans. Under current law, it takes only 1 
percent as much crack cocaine to trigger equal mandatory minimum 
penalties with powder cocaine. This disparity has a severe racial 
impact, as African Americans are much more likely than white Americans 
to be sentenced for crack offenses. For example, in FY 1999, blacks 
accounted for 84.7 percent of those sentenced for crack offenses and 
whites accounted for just 5.4 percent. There is also reason to doubt 
the logic of the crack-powder distinction on law enforcement grounds. 
Since cocaine is imported and distributed in powder form, and only 
manufactured into crack at the retail level, those persons at the 
highest end of the drug distribution chain are rarely affected by the 
increased crack penalties. In other words, the harshest sentences are 
reserved for less-culpable offenders.
  Despite these troubling facts, Mr. Walters has referred to the racial 
impact of the sentencing disparity as a ``perceived racial injustice'' 
and urged Congress in 1996 testimony to ``[b]lock lower crack 
sentences'' and to strip the U.S. Sentencing Commission of authority 
even to propose changes in criminal penalties where Congress has 
adopted mandatory minimums. His position on this issue undoubtedly has 
played a role in the decision by 21 members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, including the ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. John Conyers, to oppose this nomination. Considering 
that Mr. Conyers was such a strong supporter of Asa Hutchinson's 
nomination to head the Drug Enforcement Administration that he took the 
time to write me about it, I take his strong opposition to this 
nomination seriously.
  Mr. Walters' reaction to popular and legislative judgments by various 
States to allow limited use of marijuana for medical purposes also 
concerns me. Numerous states have considered and passed medical 
marijuana initiatives, some by substantial majorities. Mr. Walters has 
responded to this trend by advocating that the federal government use 
the Controlled Substances Act to take away the federal licenses from 
any physician who prescribes marijuana to a patient in states that 
permit the practice. Such a step would prevent these doctors from 
prescribing or possessing any medication that is

[[Page 23977]]

federally controlled, basically making the practice of medicine 
impossible. In addition to running roughshod over any federalism 
concerns whatsoever, Mr. Walters' draconian response raises questions 
about his sense of proportion. Although shutting down the process as he 
has suggested may be effective in rendering these State-passed 
initiatives meaningless, his proposal is a very blunt instrument, to 
say the least.
  Mr. Walters' response to written questions on this issue did not 
alleviate my concerns. I asked him whether the Federal government 
should make it a priority to prosecute people who distribute marijuana 
to ill people in States that have approved medical marijuana 
initiatives. He answered that he supports ``enforcing the law,'' and 
then briefly discussed the relatively small size of the DEA, without 
addressing whether medical marijuana cases should be a priority. I am 
all the more disappointed by the insufficiency of this answer in light 
of last month's DEA raid on a California center that provided marijuana 
to the ill in accordance with California law. It is absurd that such a 
matter has become a government priority, given our growing problems 
with heroin, metham- phetamines, and other far more powerful and 
dangerous drugs. I asked Mr. Walters recently about this raid, but he 
said he believed it would be inappropriate to make any substantive 
comment prior to his confirmation.
  Mr. Walters has been a prominent spokesman for active interdiction 
efforts in Latin America, and I fear he would seek to have the United 
States overextend its anti-drug role in Latin America. Prior to the 
development of Plan Colombia, he said that ``we need to do more in 
Latin America'' in ``[f]ighting drugs at the source.'' He has also been 
a consistent supporter of increasing the U.S. military's role in 
preventing drugs from entering the United States. I agree that reducing 
the supply of drugs would have tremendous benefits for our nation. At 
the same time, I agree with President Bush that the reason that so many 
drugs find their way to our shores is because there is substantial 
demand for them. The costs--both financial and political--of our 
involvement in the internal affairs of Latin American nations require 
close scrutiny. I have been skeptical about many elements of the ill-
considered Plan Colombia, and we should be extremely cautious of 
additional proposals of that nature.
  In addition, Mr. Walters has been sharply critical of Mexico, calling 
it a ``narco state'' and a ``safe haven'' for the illegal drug 
industry. Although these comments were made about predecessor 
governments to the Fox administration, they cannot help Mr. Walters' 
efforts to implement the Bush administration's appropriate policy of 
strengthening our ties with Mexico.
  Mr. Walters has forcefully expressed his positions on drug-related 
and other issues for the better part of two decades, both in and out of 
government. He is a staunch advocate for interdiction and punishment, 
but his record has not demonstrated a commitment to a comprehensive 
approach to our drug problems. When the Judiciary Committee held its 
confirmation hearing for this nominee, I said that I feared that Mr. 
Walters had a hard-line law enforcement answer to every question about 
drug policy, at the expense of the balanced approach that we need to 
succeed in the struggle against drug abuse. I still hold those fears, 
but I hope that Mr. Walters exceeds my expectations in office.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of all parents and grandparents, 
teachers, clergy, mentors, agents of law enforcement, treatment and 
prevention professionals, and all the others who work every day to 
prevent illegal drug use from destroying the lives of our young people, 
I rise to support the nomination of John Walters, the President's 
nominee to be our nation's next Drug Czar. The confirmation of this 
important nominee is long overdue. Mr. Walters' nomination has 
languished in the Senate for almost six months, but with his 
confirmation, the President's cabinet will finally be complete.
  Mr. Walters will begin his tenure as Drug Czar at a very precarious 
time, but I know he is the right person for this challenge. He will 
need to work closely with law enforcement, intelligence, and military 
authorities to prevent drugs from being trafficked into America from 
abroad and to prevent the manufacturing and sale of drugs for the 
purpose of funding terrorist activities. Mr. Walters is eminently 
qualified to carry out this task, and, as I have previously stated, I 
am confident that he will be a first-rate Director. After all, having 
served at the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Department 
of Education with Bill Bennett, he learned from the person widely 
regarded--by Republicans and Democrats alike--as the most talented and 
effective drug czar we have had in this country.
  I want to highlight once more how John Walters' career in public 
service has prepared him well for this office. He has worked tirelessly 
over the last two decades helping to formulate and improve 
comprehensive policies designed to keep drugs away from our children. 
By virtue of this experience, he truly has unparalleled knowledge and 
experience in all facets of drug control policy. Lest there be any 
doubt that Mr. Walters' past efforts were successful, let me point out 
that during his tenure at the Department of Education and ONDCP, drug 
use in America fell to its lowest level at any time in the past 25 
years, and drug use by teens plunged over 50 percent. Even after 
leaving ONDCP in 1993, Mr. Walters has remained a vocal advocate for 
curbing illegal drug use. Tragically, as illegal drug use edged upward 
under the previous administration, his voice went unheeded.
  John Walters enjoys widespread support from distinguished members of 
the law enforcement community, including the Fraternal Order of Police 
and the National Troopers Coalition. His nomination is also supported 
by some of the most prominent members of the prevention and treatment 
communities, including the National Association of Drug Court 
Professionals, the American Methadone Treatment Association, the 
Partnership for Drug Free America, National Families in Action, and the 
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. All of these organizations 
agree that if we are to win the war on drugs in America, we need a 
comprehensive policy aimed at reducing both the demand for and supply 
of drugs. Mr. Walters' accomplished record demonstrates that he, too, 
has always believed in such a comprehensive approach. As he stated 
before Congress in 1993, an effective anti-drug strategy must 
``integrate efforts to reduce the supply of as well as the demand for 
illegal drugs.''
  Despite this groundswell of support, ever since Mr. Walters was first 
mentioned almost seven months ago to be the next Drug Czar, several 
interested individuals and groups have attacked his nomination with a 
barrage of unfounded criticisms. Because these untruths helped delay 
his confirmation until today, I feel compelled to respond once more to 
some of these gross distortions.
  Some have charged that John Walters is hostile to drug treatment. 
Once again, I want to state for the record that this criticism is 
categorically false. He has a long, documented history of supporting 
drug treatment as an integral component of a balanced national drug 
control policy. You do not have to take my word on this. You need only 
look at the numbers.
  During Mr. Walters' tenure at ONDCP, treatment funding increased 74 
percent. This compares with an increase over eight years for the 
Clinton Administration of a mere 17 percent. This commitment to 
expanding treatment explains why John Walters has such broad support 
from the treatment community. It is simply inconceivable that the 
prominent groups supporting Mr. Walters would do so if they believed he 
was hostile to treatment.
  Another recurring criticism is that Mr. Walters doesn't support a 
balanced drug control policy that incorporates both supply and demand 
reduction programs. This criticism, too, is flat wrong and again belied 
by his record. For example, in testimony given before this Committee in 
1991, Mr. Walters,

[[Page 23978]]

then acting Director of ONDCP, laid out a national drug control 
strategy that included the following guiding principles: educating our 
citizens about the dangers of drug use; placing more addicts in 
effective treatment programs; expanding the number and quality of 
treatment programs; reducing the supply and availability of drugs on 
our streets; and dismantling trafficking organizations through tough 
law enforcement and interdiction measures.
  Mr. Walters' firm support of prevention programs is equally evident. 
His commitment to prevention became clear during his tenure at the 
Department of Education during the Reagan Administration. He drafted 
the Department's first drug prevention guide for parents and teachers--
titled ``Schools Without Drugs,'' created the Department's first 
prevention advertising campaign, and implemented the Drug-Free Schools 
grant program.
  These are not the words or actions of an ideologue who is hostile to 
prevention and treatment, but rather, represent the firmly held beliefs 
of a man of conviction who has fought hard to include effective 
prevention and treatment programs in the fight against drug abuse.
  Some have also criticized Mr. Walters because he doesn't buy into the 
oft-repeated liberal shibboleth that too many low-level, ``non-
violent'' drug offenders are being arrested, prosecuted, and jailed. I, 
too, plead guilty to this charge, but the facts prove we are right. 
Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that 67.4 percent of 
federal defendants convicted of simple possession had prior arrest 
records, and 54 percent had prior convictions. Moreover, prison 
sentences handed down for possession offenses amount to just 1 percent 
of Federal prison sentences. Thus, it is patently false that a 
significant proportion of our federal prison population consists of 
individuals who have done nothing other than possess illegal drugs for 
their personal consumption.
  The drug legalization camp exaggerates the rate at which defendants 
are jailed solely for simple possession. This camp also wants us to 
view those who sell drugs as ``nonviolent offenders.'' Mr. Walters, to 
his credit, has had the courage to publicly refute these misleading 
statistics and claims. I want to join him in making one point perfectly 
clear. Those who sell drugs, whatever type and whatever quantity, are 
not, to this father and grandfather, ``nonviolent offenders.'' Not when 
each pill, each joint, each line, and each needle can and often does 
destroy a young person's life.
  I am committed 100 percent to expanding and improving drug abuse 
education, prevention, and treatment programs, and I know that John 
Walters is my ally in this effort. Last week, the Judiciary Committee 
voted out S. 304, the ``Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment 
Act of 2001,'' a bipartisan bill I drafted with Senators Leahy, Biden, 
DeWine, Thurmond, Feinstein, and Grassley. This legislation will 
dramatically increase prevention and treatment efforts, and I remain 
confident that it will become law this Congress. As I have stated many 
times, I solicited Mr. Walters' expert advice in drafting S. 304. I 
know, and his record clearly reflects, that he agrees with me and my 
colleagues that prevention and treatment must remain integral 
components of our national drug control strategy.
  We need to shore up our support for demand reduction programs if we 
are to reduce illegal drug use in America. This commitment is 
bipartisan. Our President believes in it. Our Attorney General believes 
in it. Our Democratic leader in the Senate believes in it. My 
Republican colleagues believe in it. And most importantly, John Walters 
believes in it.
  Finally, Mr. President, now that Mr. Walters is about to be 
confirmed, I want to urge the Senate not to let this session end 
without holding hearings for and acting on the deputy positions at 
ONDCP. Mr. Walters needs his team in place. I look forward to working 
with my Senate Republican and Democratic colleagues and the 
Administration to carry forward our fight against drug trafficking and 
terrorism.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose this nomination. We have a real 
opportunity to strengthen the nation's efforts against substance abuse, 
and we ought to take advantage of it. We rely heavily today on police, 
prosecutors, and prisons to handle this problem. There's too little 
emphasis on prevention and treatment. Spending for prevention and 
treatment has never exceeded one-third of the federal drug-control 
budget.
  This unacceptable situation continues, in spite of overwhelming 
evidence that drug treatment works.
  In 1994, a landmark study, the California Drug and Alcohol Treatment 
Assessment, found that every dollar spent on treatment saves taxpayers 
$7 in future costs for crime and health care.
  A 1997 study by the Rand Corporation found that treatment for heavy 
cocaine users is three times more effective at reducing cocaine 
consumption than mandatory minimum sentences, and 11 times more 
effective than interdiction.
  A study by the Institute of Medicine showed that treatment was 
effective in reducing criminal activity and emergency-room visits, and 
in increasing rates of employment.
  In 1997, the Department of Justice reported that offenders who 
complete drug-court programs are only one-third as likely to be 
arrested for new drug offenses or felonies compared to other offenders, 
and only one-fourth as likely to violate probation or parole.
  Now more than ever, Americans support prevention and treatment. They 
understand that we cannot stop substance abuse without reducing the 
demand for drugs. In the nation's efforts against substance abuse, 
prevention and treatment must become equal partners with incarceration 
and interdiction.
  To his credit, President Bush has called for closing the treatment 
gap. He has stated that ``the most effective way to reduce the supply 
of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in America.''
  Thanks to the leadership of Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, and Senator 
Biden, the Judiciary Committee passed a bill last week to increase 
federal funding for drug education, prevention, and treatment. there is 
much more, however, that we must do to see that all Americans 
understand that drug use is harmful, and that effective treatment is 
available to every addict who wants it.
  The nomination of John Walters sends exactly the opposite signal. As 
a longtime critic of drug treatment, he's the wrong man for the job. In 
1996, he ridiculed President Clinton's proposal to provide drug 
treatment to chronic users as ``the latest manifestation of the 
liberals' commitment to a `therapeutic state' in which government 
serves as the agent of personal rehabilitation.'' Last March, Mr. 
Walters described the view that addiction is a disease of the brain as 
an ``ideology'' promulgated by the ``therapy-only lobby.''
  Mr. Walters has emphasized punishment and prisons as the primary 
solution to the problem of drugs. He has criticized attempts to reform 
mandatory-minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. The United 
States now has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. 
Yet Mr. Walters recently declared that ``[t]he war on crime and drugs 
is rapidly losing ground to the war on punishment and prisons.''
  In his response to the Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, Mr. 
Walters said that during the first Bush administration, he was ``a 
principal author of a new drug strategy and federal spending plan that 
targeted more resources for treatment than any administration before or 
after.'' But as Mr. Walters has admitted, the Clinton administration 
spent substantially more--not less--on drug treatment. As for the 
increases that did occur during the Bush administration, Mr. Walters 
fought them all the way.
  At his nomination hearing on October 10, I pressed Mr. Walters on 
whether he would try to balance federal spending for demand-reduction 
and supply-control efforts. Saying only that he was not ``notionally'' 
opposed to equal spending, he refused to give an answer.

[[Page 23979]]

  Before the hearing, the president of the Betty Ford Center wrote that 
he and Mrs. Ford questioned whether Mr. Walters has ``the confidence in 
the treatment and prevention strategies that . . . are necessary for 
the creation and implementation of a balanced and thoughtful approach 
to U.S. drug policy.''
  Mr. Walters' comments on race are also troubling. In 1997, he 
criticized General Barry McCaffrey for sending ``the wrong message'' 
when he expressed concern about the high percentage of African-
Americans being imprisoned for drug offenses. Earlier this year, he 
categorically dismissed the view that the criminal justice system 
unjustly punishes African-American men as one of ``the great urban 
myths of our time.''
  Racial discrimination is offensive and unacceptable in all its 
aspects. The need to eliminate it continues to be one of the nation's 
important challenges. It is undisputed that even though blacks and 
whites use illegal drugs at the same rate, blacks are incarcerated for 
drug offenses at a much higher rate. Mr. Walters was asked to justify 
his ``urban myth'' statement, but he only cited unrelated statistics on 
murder rates. We need a Drug Czar who has, at the very least, an open 
mind about the possibility of racial bias in drug sentencing.
  Mr. Walters' supporters contend that despite his longstanding 
opposition to increased treatment funding, and his very recent 
criticism of drug therapy, he is the right choice to revitalize our 
drug-control efforts and close the country's treatment gap. I hope that 
they are right, and that those of us who oppose him are wrong. I am 
concerned, however, that by approving this nomination today, we are 
losing our best opportunity to develop a more balanced and more 
effective national strategy on drug abuse.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to congratulate John Walters, the 
new Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, on his 
confirmation by the Senate last night. I have no doubt that the hard 
work and experience he brings to the Office will greatly benefit our 
efforts to reduce drug abuse in our nation.
  I do wish he could have been confirmed much earlier, considering the 
challenges we face at home and overseas. In the last eight years alone, 
teenage drug use has almost doubled and, as I speak, terrorists, 
including those we are fighting in Afghanistan and across the globe, 
are using the drug trade to help finance their operations.
  President Bush nominated John Walters in early June, but he was not 
granted a hearing until October 10. Finally, on November 8 and five 
months after his nomination, John Walters was favorably voted out of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, 14 to 5, with five Democrats joining 
all the Republicans in support of his confirmation. Seven months to be 
confirmed is not a credit to the workings of the Senate.
  It was disappointing that, of the small number of activists opposed 
to the nomination of John Walters, a few carried on a campaign to 
distort his public policy positions. Americans would not have known if 
they just listened to these activists that John Walters believes that 
many first-time, non-violent offenders ought to be diverted into 
treatment. In fact, when he was deputy drug czar in the first Bush 
Administration under William Bennett, he helped secure increases in the 
drug treatment budget in four years that were double what the previous 
administration managed in eight. And it's also noteworthy that the 
previous administration enforced the very same anti-drug laws that some 
of John Walters' opponents today criticize, and the same administration 
made no effort to change them.
  I look forward to working with John Walters and hope his needlessly 
protracted nomination process will not discourage other outstanding 
Americans from considering public service to our Nation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join with several of my colleagues in 
opposing the nomination of John P. Walters to be Director of the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy--the Nation's Drug Czar.
  As much as anyone here, I am mindful of the need to unify behind the 
President during these times. Let me emphasize that I share the 
President's goals in combating the problem of drug abuse, and I applaud 
his commitment of greater resources to drug treatment and prevention 
efforts. My fear, however, is that Mr. Walters is not the person to 
meet these goals.
  John Walters is a seasoned veteran of the Drug War, someone with a 
long and established track record on many controversial issues. Too 
often in the past, he has adopted divisive stances on these issues. His 
views, and his certitude in advocating them, send a fair warning to 
this body as it debates his nomination. His controversial and often 
incendiary writings on drug-related issues have been red meat for the 
right-wing of the Republican Party.
  Let me focus on a couple topics. Like many of my colleagues, I am 
very troubled by the considerable evidence that our prosecution of the 
drug war disproportionally targets racial and ethnic minorities. 
African-Americans represent 12 percent of the U.S. population, 11 
percent of current drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for 
drug violations, 53 percent of those convicted in state courts, and 58 
percent of those currently incarcerated in state prisons. In my home 
State of Illinois, African-American men end up in State prisons on drug 
charges at a rate 57 times greater than white men. These disparities, 
whatever their cause, demand the attention of the Nation's Drug Czar. 
Aside from the injustice of this situation, there is stark evidence 
that drug offenders who are not minorities escape the same scrutiny and 
enforcement as those who are. Our war on drugs must be fair and 
balanced.
  With the exception of the last few weeks, Mr. Walters has spent most 
of his career being dismissive of the subject of racial disparities in 
drug enforcement. As recently as this April, he characterized as 
``urban myth'' the sincere concern of many, including myself, that 
young black men receive excessive prison terms under the current 
sentencing regime. He has accused the nonpartisan federal Sentencing 
Commission of being ``irresponsible'' for proposing adjustments to the 
100-1 disparity between federal prison terms for crack cocaine and 
powder cocaine offenses, offenses which divide starkly along color 
lines.
  It has become a cliche for public officials to lament racial 
profiling in law enforcement. What matters is action, not words. But 
even now, when Mr. Walters has experienced a ``change of heart'' on 
many issues, he will only concede that there is a ``perception'' of 
disparate treatment in the criminal justice system. As someone 
committed to using the Drug Czar's office to promote criminal law 
initiatives, he has exhibited little sensitivity for the role that race 
plays in the criminal justice system. Given the important law 
enforcement role filled by the Drug Czar, I cannot overlook this 
weakness.
  Another source of real concern is the nominee's record on drug 
treatment and prevention. Early in my congressional career, I worked to 
pass legislation to improve substance abuse treatment programs for 
pregnant and postpartum women. We know that treatment programs can 
work. A study by the RAND Corporation a few years ago found that for 
every dollar that we invest in substance abuse treatment, the American 
taxpayers save $7.46 in miscellaneous societal costs.
  The Nation's drug crisis demands that we supplement law enforcement 
efforts with effective treatment and prevention programs. While Mr. 
Walters has voiced his support for a balanced and coordinated approach, 
his long paper trail belies his real intentions. He has a long record 
of hostility towards, as he put it, the ``notoriously under-performing 
drug treatment system,'' and towards those who implement it. He has 
criticized those who approach drug addiction as a disease as 
``ideologues.'' He has condemned the Drug-Free Schools Act, which 
created many of the same types of prevention programs he takes credit 
for now.
  Let me say a few brief words about the John Walters who came to visit 
the

[[Page 23980]]

Senate Judiciary Committee. Judging by his answers to the Committee's 
questions, he has been doing a lot of reflection lately. He now 
believes that ``the consideration of addiction as a disease has wide 
application.'' A man who once defended harsh mandatory minimum 
sentences today professes support for ``second and third chances'' and 
tempering justice with mercy. A harsh partisan critic of President 
Clinton now wishes to ``transcend traditional political and party 
boundaries.'' The same person who wrote ``[t]here is no question that 
supply fosters demand'' stands beside President Bush's pledge that 
``[t]he most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is 
to reduce the demand for drugs in America.''
  Mr. Walters assured the Committee that he has not undergone what we 
refer to as a ``confirmation conversion.'' That is precisely what 
concerns me--that he has not moderated his views at all, but has merely 
rethought his public relations strategy. Over the course of his career, 
Mr. Walters has made a conscious choice to polarize rather than advance 
the public debate. Accordingly, I cannot provide my support for his 
nomination.

                          ____________________